Dear Mr Bankier

Posted on by

Readers may be aware that the group Fans Without Scarves have written to Celtic urging them to seek a review of Scottish football (See here)
On the back of that laudible effort, I have been persuaded to publish a letter I sent to that same board over a week ago (on 8 November)
At the time of publication, I have received no acknowledgment.  Some organisations are like that, of course. (I put it down to the inferior quality of the social upbringing of their boards rather than concern for their postage bill)

The following is the text of that communication;

Mr I Bankier,
Chairman,
Celtic Football Club plc
Celtic Park, Glasgow G40 3RE

08/11/2018

Dear Mr Bankier,

“Resolution 12”

You will, of course, recall as clearly as I that, at the Celtic plc AGM in 2013, the Resolution bearing number 12 on the agenda was not formally debated and voted upon, but was adjourned indefinitely.

I understand that over the intervening years (!) a number of conversations and discussions have taken place between the Board and the immediate proposers of Resolution 12 (among whom, I should perhaps say, I was not numbered in 2013 and am not now numbered).

As an eventual outcome of those discussions and conversations, as again you will recall, Celtic plc in September 2017, shortly before that year’s AGM, entrusted to the Scottish Football Association [SFA] the task of undertaking a thorough investigation into the circumstances under which the Union of European Football Associations [UEFA] granted a UEFA-competitions licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011.

Unfathomably, it was not until May of this year that the Compliance Officer of the SFA referred the matter to the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal [JPDT]

In that same month of May 2018, evidence emerged that appeared to cast serious doubts on the legitimacy of the award of the UEFA licence to Rangers Football Club in 2011.

In late June 2018, and following careful consideration of that evidence, the legal representative of what is known as the ‘Res.12 Group’ informed both the SFA and Celtic plc of these doubts, passing to those bodies copies of the evidence which gave rise to those doubts.

In July 2018, The Rangers Football Club Ltd challenged the reference to the JPDT, arguing that the appropriate authority to which any such reference ought to have been made is the Court of Arbitration for Sport [CAS]

This challenge has apparently and inexplicably frozen all action by the JPDT.

To my eye, as a small shareholder, it appears that the Board of Celtic plc have been and continue to be at the very least dilatory and lukewarm if not yet totally remiss in looking after the interests of their shareholders.

It is now November: the reference by Celtic plc to the SFA was made over one year ago. Even by reference to the civil Courts let alone to the internal disciplinary body of a not very large sports governance body such as the SFA, that is an unconscionably long time for a reference not to have been acted upon. I now feel obliged to ask the following questions:

  1. Have the Celtic Board pressed the SFA to say what action they have taken vis-vis the challengemade to the legal powers of the JPDT to investigate the circumstances surrounding the award of the licence ?
  2. If they have not done so, would they care to give their reasons why not?
  3. If the response from the SFA was that the matter of the jurisdiction of the JPDT has been referred elsewhere (to UEFA or to the CAS), are the Celtic Board content with that response and prepared to take such subsequent monitoring action as may be necessary?
  4. If the SFA have not referred the question of jurisdiction elsewhere, have the Celtic Board ascertained at what stage the JPDT’s investigation is at, or even whether it has yet begun?
  5. If the Board have been told that the JPDT has stalled, perhaps indefinitely, what does the Celtic Board propose doing to ensure that the investigation that they were assured would be undertaken will indeed be undertaken by the JPDT as a matter of priority, with a timetable for completion?
  6. Does the Celtic Board actually trust the SFA/JPDT to investigate thoroughly, honestly and deliver true judgement? Is it not time that a vote was taken to pass ‘Res 12’, based on what is now known by Celtic plc, and the matter formally referred by Celtic plc to UEFA to investigate as thoroughly as was done in the recently reported cases of the Albanian, Serbian and Kazakhstan national associations?

The Celtic Board must keep in mind their obligations to shareholders. This would be especially so where there may be grounds for suspecting chicanery on the part of others, in consequence of which Celtic plc might have been denied an actual, defined sum of money and the opportunity potentially to compete for much more in ‘prize’ money.

In such circumstances it would not be at all for the Board on its own authority simply to ignore the possibility of chicanery and dismiss the matter.

There are sufficient grounds for me to believe that the award of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers Football Club in 2011 may have been made in the knowledge that that club was absolutely not entitled to that award.

In my opinion, the granting of a UEFA licence to the then Rangers FC in 2011 is not merely a ‘sporting’ matter, but one which might conceivably, in the absence of acceptable responses from the SFA/JPDT, require reference to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.

The failure to date of Celtic plc to insist that the SFA take urgent action to fulfil the commitment they made that a thorough, independent investigation would be undertaken urges me to make such reference on my own initiative as a citizen who suspects that a crime may have been committed.

However, before taking such a step, I think I will await your replies to the questions above if you would be good enough to provide such.

Yours sincerely,

name and address

This entry was posted in Blogs, Featured by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.

About Trisidium

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

630 thoughts on “Dear Mr Bankier”


  1. A further point re the "£19m" – King will be unlikely to be putting up the full amount. However, when he submits his request for exchange control clearance, through an "authorised dealer" (probably Investec), he will be looking for approval for up to £19m.

    However, it will be up to the "cash confirmer" (again probably Investec), to satisfy themselves of the amount of actual cash they believe would be enough to cover all eventualities and the risks.  Investec and TOP may come to an agreed position on that. The existence of the irrevocable undertakings for some shareholdings (new placees and Club 1872) will most likely mean that those shares (approx 50m or £10m in value at 20p) may not have to funded up front.


  2. A couple of observations:

    A sign of the times – Chris McLaughlin cleared himself with the BBC's legal team before contacting Sandy Easdale, lest he should be deemed to be in contempt of court during a live court case.

    Technically, King remains in the witness box, while the proceedings are "continued". However, Lady Wolffe freed him from the normal constrains about not discussing the case with anyone, in order to allow him to progress making an offer.


  3. We should all be grateful that Mr King has used his latest visit to the Scottish courts to assist our judiciary, police and indeed society in the quest to identify, address and eradicate money laundering.

    There is surely nothing glib or shameless about that.

     

    OK I'm wrong and all of us except perhaps some well briefed and Rangers minded football journos know it is just a big bushy South African King Squirrel he is employing rather shamefully and glibly in an attempt to minimise his exposure.

     

     

     


  4. From the BBC report :

    "But King said he could not make an offer to four shareholders because of their claimed criminal links.

    He said that a Rangers board meeting last Monday concluded that the four could not transfer their stakes, adding that one of them was "engaged in criminal activities in the USA"."

    So what did the police and SFA say about this matter when RIFC brought it to their attention? Clearly this has not just arisen this past week….

     

    Scottish Football needs a strong SFA.


  5. Highlander 30th November 2018 at 12:45
    I’m not sure whether judges are permitted to take account of a defendant’s past history, so it’s possible that Lady Wolffe won’t let King’s ‘glib and shameless liar’ status affect her judgement, but I will find it utterly baffling if King isn’t charged with perjury, having declared himself penniless in a court of law just a few short weeks ago in the same legal case, yet now he claims to be able to fund the mandatory offer,
    ………………….
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1068569437375209473?p=v


  6. Shirley, King hasn't shamelessly abused court privilege – by letting loose a ‘slanderous’, dirty moneyed squirrel?

    Thank goodness RIFC has a whiter than Whyte Chairman to cast the first stone, etc…  cheeky


  7. Aye, and RIFC are lucky not to have a Chairman and major shareholder with criminal convictions too…..

     

    Scottish Football needs a sense of irony (or maybe hypocrisy).


  8. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46403987

     

    As part of his evidence King also listed key shareholders who, he says, have told him they will not take up the offer.

    One of the investors mentioned was former chairman of the football board Sandy Easdale. Mr Easdale has since told the BBC he has given no such undertaking.

    A spokesman for the Easdales said: "Despite Mr King's evidence today, at no time has Sandy Easdale given him an assurance that he would not sell his shares for 20p as stipulated by the Takeover Panel.

    "Neither Mr Easdale nor his brother James have ever spoken to Mr King on this matter."

    ================================================

    The two positions are mutually exclusive.

    Someone is lying.

    If it is Dave King he is doing it under oath … I believe that is perjury

    Oh and just out of interest, both King and Sandy Easdale are convicted criminals.

     


  9. redlichtie 30th November 2018 at 17:11
    11 0 Rate This

    From the BBC report :

    “But King said he could not make an offer to four shareholders because of their claimed criminal links.

    He said that a Rangers board meeting last Monday concluded that the four could not transfer their stakes, adding that one of them was “engaged in criminal activities in the USA”.”

    So what did the police and SFA say about this matter when RIFC brought it to their attention? Clearly this has not just arisen this past week….
    ………………….
    After a 3 year search of the books he may have found something then.
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/new-rangers-chief-dave-king-5288569


  10. So Mr King is concerned that four shareholders may be involved in organised crime?

    Were his own crimes organised or disorganised?

    What's the difference?


  11. The Herald claiming in it's header that King has stopped legal proceedings against him. 

    That'll make interesting reading for the judge over the weekend. She seems to be under the impression that when King's lawyer asked for the case to be stopped, she refused, then put certain court orders on King to monitor him, then told him to be back in court in February.


  12. How many shareholders live in the USA

    I only know one.


  13. So then, has RIFC/TRFC been funded by dirty money? The question then is the Company still being funded that way? 

    Any comment from the SFA? Will there be a 4 page exposé in the Sunday Post business section this weekend? 

    More to Mr Kings statement in court than meets the eye I feel.


  15. Dave King also told court the club have blocked some shareholders from transferring shares due to concerns over money laundering and organised crime.
    ……………..
    One question if i may?
    Has he contacted the police due to these concerns?


  16. Cluster One @20.59

    Another court case perhaps only this time as a witness for the prosecution? How novel.


  18. One more thing if i may?
    Is the £15 million player now valued at £19 million?


  19. TOP statement could have been much more concise.

    Straight to para.39

    "Naw, just naw."

     


  20. Easyjambo,

    May I also thank you and John Clark for all your work this week.


  21. One more thing, i promise.

    Can king get £19 million or even suggest he has to take £19 million out of SA? 
    ……………………
    Thanks Portbhoy 30th November 2018 at 22:44
    for reminding me to thank the court guys. sorry for late thanks, it’s been busy


  22. "Ex Ludo 30th November 2018 at 19:35

    So then, has RIFC/TRFC been funded by dirty money? The question then is the Company still being funded that way? Any comment from the SFA?

    Will there be a 4 page exposé in the Sunday Post business section this weekend?…"

    ============================

    Ah, the Sunday Post.

    My parents bought it every week and even as a primary kid I realised it was pure p!sh.  But, it had its core readership I suppose.

    IIRC, in traditional Sunday Post style, any 4 page expose will start with something like;

    "Wee Jeanie down the road overhead…"

    And the article will finish with an obligatory "!" for effect.

    That's pretty much all I remember from that paper from c.40 years ago. [Cartoons aside of course.]

    Has it changed since then…?

     


  23. easyJambo 30th November 2018 at 21:40

    This is how the TOP saw King's last attempt at an appeal.

    http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Panel-Statement-2018-19.pdf

    ============================================

    I can see why King would want to limit his exposure by excluding those who had taken part in the new share placement. But why did the TOP not at the same time waive the threshold requirement before the offer became unconditional? That would have had the effect of protecting the non-concert party shareholders. 

     

    The motion at the AGM could then have been voted on in the knowledge that this was the case – just as NOAL/King knowingly voted to include the newly issued shares in their TOP-required offer.

     

    It will certainly be interesting to see the reaction of anyone wishing to sell their shares to NOAL/DCK but being frustrated by the votes derived from newly issued shares making it impossible to achieve the required threshold and hence such a sale.

     

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  24. In the usual way, I give what I think is the substance of what I heard in Court today.

    I do not pretend to give a totally verbatim account. But any paraphrasing or shortened form is faithful to the substance of what I heard, with no deliberate insertion or exclusion of anything that I heard, in any attempt to mislead. My comments are in [ed..] format when I remembered to do that.

    eJ has already given his usual on-the button summary of  the  guts of the business: I will try to give a flavour of the roughly three and a half hours of open court time and about an hour and a half of 'adjournment' time during which the Parties had discussions, before Court reconvened at approximately 14.10.

    ———–

    Before Lady Wolffe, Court room 7, Parliament House, at 10.00

    Mr Mitchell QC for respondent( David Cunningham King); Dr Johnstone QC ,for the Pursuer.(The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers)

     

    Lady W: Good morning, Mr Mitchell.

    Mitchell QC: ( speaking a little loud)Good morning, m'Lady. Can I just say first that although the microphones are working, the amplification isn't. [ed. yesterday there was a complaint that it was difficult to hear clearly]

     

    Lady W: I can tell you that I checked yesterday, and discovered that no speakers were ever installed in this court-room! [ ed. Court room 7 is quite small, perhaps 12 metres by 6 from entrance door to the bench, possibly a little smaller]

    Mr M: Thank you, m'Lady. ( to the Macer) Call Mr King. ( ed. Mr King, sitting in the row in front and to the left of us gets up, makes his way to the witness stand, the Macer announces 'Mr David King', and Lady Wolffe swears him in)

    Mr M gets him to confirm, name, age, and business address.

     

    Mr M: You are aware of the issues involved …

    K:Yes

    Mr M: current issue of the Court Order..

    K: Yes.

    Mr M: You have given two statements already,…

    K: Yes

    Mr M: Would you look at the first, please, in the folder and read it (Macer hands King a folder of documents, and he finds the document being referred to and reads it silently)

    Mr M: .And you earlier submitted an affidavit?

    K: Yes

    Mr M: a few pages further in, in the folder. Marked 'Affidavit'-have you got it?

    K;Yes.

    Mr M: Familiar with that?

    K:Yes.

    Mr M:These are true statements?

    K: Yes

    Mr M:Put aside the earlier one, and we'll stay with the second affidavit

    Lady W: (searching her folder) Which version ? ( she finds it )[ ed. These proceedings opened yesterday , and Mr Mitchell had explained to Lady Wolffe that certain papers had been amended but admitted only late ,and the numberings did not quite tally: this would all be tidied up, of course, but it was the agreed amended papers that both Parties were using]

    Mr M (continuing to address Mr K) First sentence… this is the standard form in South Africa? Who prepared it?

    K: I did.

    Mr M: When?

    K:During August, it was sent to my solicitors on 6 August, I reviewed it the other day.

    Mr M: All your own words?

    K: Yes

    Mr M: And you cover the history of your involvement with Rangers up until. [ed.recently?]…..

    K: yes

    Mr M: there is no statement from you about he up-to-date position. I'd like to ask you about that. Do you accept it is necessary make at this stage, to make the offer?

    K:Yes. I am still hopeful that the additional shares should be excluded. My view on Monday was that an appeal………

    [ed. Lady Wolffe with a question in her voice used the word 'appeal?' I gather from the exchange that followed that Mr K had asked the Takeover Panel Executive to exclude the 'share issue' shares, that they had refused, and that K had asked the Chairman of the Hearings Committee for a review, and he had refused, and that was the 'appeal' that her Ladyship was referring to in her question]

    K:…but a Hearing will not be heard ..

    Mr M:Your case did not have merit in the eyes of the Chairman of the Committee. You wish not to take the matter further.

    K: well there are two components to that . I felt that it would be prudent to begin to consider making the offer. I would be under [ed :??] to make the offer immediately after hearing evidence yesterday

    Lady Wolffe:(questioningly) Not sure of the relevance of this………impact on these procedures ..?this would purge the contempt..

    Mr M ( addressing Mr K): ..giving an undertaking for the future to purge. You might be given a chance, and history disregarded. In the opposite case, it will not purge the Court's opinion.

    K: I've seen that some of the obstacles have been removed.

    Mr M: We'll come back to that. Could you look now at spreadsheet 7/60 made up by your solicitors?That document has been discussed [ ed.yesterday,perhaps?] Does that document set out the current position as regards the shareholdings in Rangers?

    Lady W:I don't think I've got that, Mr Mitchell.

    Mr M: A 2-page spreadsheet, m'Lady.

    (Her Ladyship searches further, and finds it.]

    From what data?

    Mr M ( to Mr K): ..compiled from information from yourself and Mr Blair?

    K: it's the official position.

    Mr M; The largest shareholders down to smaller percentage shareholders are given with their percentages, and whether they are members of the Concert Party, and the total owned by the Concert party, and how  the progress for the remaining 66% would depend on the acceptance by [ed.only] 16%.Then there are 4 possible entries not applicable to the concert party:

    there is a 'yes' entry [ed.for those shareholders who have given an undetaking NOT to accept the offer ], a 'No' entry for those who had NOT given an undertaking . There is the name there of Mr Wolhardt .But he is now a 'Yes'. He has 2.51%.

    Is there a further change?

    K. Yes. Andrew [ed. I didn't catch the surname] has given me a verbal commitment to 'Yes'

    Mr M: Then the remaining shareholders?

    K: Alexander Easdale and [ed. Name not heard] ..not to sell.

    And I assume that life-long shareholders, supporters with a 100 shares and such are not likely to sell.

    Mr M: Undertakings of 31%.Might put this up to 40%

    K: Not absolutely yet.

    Mr M: There is a column on “restricted”. The total of 'restricted' and those who have undertaken not to accept the offer comes to 48.2%. The offer would only proceed at 16% non-concert party.

    !7% not at the moment…What about all the other non-named holders? Coming back to the 'restricted', would you look please at 7/64..

    Lady Wolffe: I understand that that might be a work-around, Mr Mitchell. But the detail, is it relevant?

    Mr M: I'm trying to show the effect of the new share issue, m'Lady.

    Lady W: mmm… well, okay.

    Mr M( continuing to address Mr King): That's not dated. When was it made public?

    K: I'm not sure.

    Mr M: We'll hear from Mr Blair , 4 share holdings not listed.

    K: As Chairman, I can't consider from the Board's perspective. Under no circumstances can these 4 shareholders accept an offer. If . comply with disclosure, restrictions might be lifted.

    Lady W: [ed. Here I lost what said, but it related to questions as to why there were these 'restrictions'. King in reply mentioned 'money laundering reasons'.

    Mr M: Might that change?

    K: No, those shares will NOT be transferred.

    Lady W: But they are not barred from accepting an offer? There re two classes of 'restricted'?

    Mr M: Yes, 7/64 links in with 7/60as far as Blue Pitch . But does not link in with BNL….Mr King,it may be these…

    K: BNL engaged in criminal activities in the USA. They are in Administration.

    Mr M: Who makes decisions [ed. about their finances, or on their behalf?]

    K: The Administrators.

     

    Lady W:The Administrators might be in the category of wishing to maximise receipts?

    Mr M: y Lady, Mr Blair might be better able…

     

     

    [ to be continued when I've taken a sip of my Tennent's special ( £3.82 for 4×500 ml cans in Morrisons), and, no,I'm not subsidised by that M]

     


  25. Hahaha, No' a bad deal, …ah get 4 500m cans o' Magners from the spar fr a shade under a fiver!


  26. my post of  23.06 refers

    'refectus cibus potusque' or at least by the 'potus', I continue my 'report' . If there are typos, blame my keyboard!

    _______
    Mr M: Coming back to 7/61,information on a particular person.

    K: yes.

    Mr M: Is this the standard form of irrevocable undertaking?

    K: Yes. 

    Mr M; the distinction between pre share-issue and post share issue, as far as the new share issue , have there ben any who have NOT given an undertaking?

    K: Andrew Hophard [ ed. I think I may have misheard that name!] has given a verbal assurance.

    Mr M: and undertakings to some extent, for example, Club 1872- they've given an undertaking. 

    Mr M: We heard how the Gordian knot could be cut yesterday by the Takeover Panel. The offer must be made to every shareholder, but there is reality, irrevocables in particular.Mr King, we're looking at one significant question: will you be able to make an offer for the shares of every non-concert party shareholder. The practical thing is where payment is to come from if the offer is accepted. The question is where the money comes from, and 'cash confirmation', and we herd from the Panel yesterday how these could be dealt with.

    Dr Johnston ( rising): M'Lady, I'm not sure that this is relevant.

     

     

    my post of  23.06 refers

    'refectus cibus potusque' or at least by the 'potus', I continue my 'report' . If there are typos, blame my keyboard!

    _______
    Mr M: Coming back to 7/61,information on a particular person.

    K: yes.

    Mr M: Is this the standard form of irrevocable undertaking?

    K: Yes. 

    Mr M; the distinction between pre share-issue and post share issue, as far as the new share issue , have there ben any who have NOT given an undertaking?

    K: Andrew Hophard [ ed. I think I may have misheard that name!] has given a verbal assurance.

    Mr M: and undertakings to some extent, for example, Club 1872- they've given an undertaking. 

    If these undertakings are solid then in effect there would be no difference between post-issue and before?

    Lady W: Where is this going? It seems somewhat fluid? Is there  need for some discussion between parties?

    Mr M: [ ed.he made a longish discourse about 'headline' figure, which I got lost in, and would only be guessing if I wrote anything]

    Lady W: but this is not relevant to this Court

    Mr M: We heard how the Gordian knot could be cut yesterday by the Takeover Panel. The offer must be made to every shareholder, but there is reality, irrevocables in particular.Mr King, we're looking at one significant question: will you be able to make an offer for the shares of every non-concert party shareholder. The practical thing is where payment is to come from if the offer is accepted. The question is where the money comes from, and 'cash confirmation', and we herd from the Panel yesterday how these could be dealt with.

    Dr Johnston ( rising): M'Lady, I'm not sure that this is relevant.

    Lady W: If there is a possibility of purging, the Court would be delighted. I'm content to let the parties..

    Mr M: I think we hear…

    Dr J: these discussions were not held 

    Mr M: (addressing Mr King); Mr King, what are the current intentions relating to complying with the Takeover Panel's stipulation as regards 'cash confirmation' in respect of entire shareholdings?

    K: I am committed 100% to use the UK.

    Mr M: It has become accepted that cash confirmation must be in the UK?

    K: I accept that.

    Mr M: What is the current position?

     

     

     

     

     

    my post of  23.06 refers

    'refectus cibus potusque' or at least by the 'potus', I continue my 'report' . If there are typos, blame my keyboard!

    _______
    Mr M: Coming back to 7/61,information on a particular person.

    K: yes.

    Mr M: Is this the standard form of irrevocable undertaking?

    K: Yes. 

    Mr M; the distinction between pre share-issue and post share issue, as far as the new share issue , have there ben any who have NOT given an undertaking?

    K: Andrew Hophard [ ed. I think I may have misheard that name!] has given a verbal assurance.

    Mr M: and undertakings to some extent, for example, Club 1872- they've given an undertaking. 

    If these undertakings are solid then in effect there would be no difference between post-issue and before?

    Lady W: Where is this going? It seems somewhat fluid? Is there  need for some discussion between parties?

    Mr M: [ ed.he made a longish discourse about 'headline' figure, which I got lost in, and would only be guessing if I wrote anything]

    Lady W: but this is not relevant to this Court

    Mr M: We heard how the Gordian knot could be cut yesterday by the Takeover Panel. The offer must be made to every shareholder, but there is reality, irrevocables in particular.Mr King, we're looking at one significant question: will you be able to make an offer for the shares of every non-concert party shareholder. The practical thing is where payment is to come from if the offer is accepted. The question is where the money comes from, and 'cash confirmation', and we herd from the Panel yesterday how these could be dealt with.

    Dr Johnston ( rising): M'Lady, I'm not sure that this is relevant.

    Lady W: If there is a possibility of purging, the Court would be delighted. I'm content to let the parties..

    Mr M: I think we hear…

    Dr J: these discussions were not held 

    Mr M: (addressing Mr King); Mr King, what are the current intentions relating to complying with the Takeover Panel's stipulation as regards 'cash confirmation' in respect of entire shareholdings?

    K: I am committed 100% to use the UK.

    Mr M: It has become accepted that cash confirmation must be in the UK?

    K: I accept that.

    Mr M: What is the current position?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


  27. Made a right hames of that!

    Here is the complete 'continuation'

    "

    refectus cibus potusque' or at least by the 'potus', I continue my 'report' . If there are typos, blame my keyboard!

    _______
    Mr M: Coming back to 7/61,information on a particular person.

    K: yes.

    Mr M: Is this the standard form of irrevocable undertaking?

    K: Yes. 

    Mr M; the distinction between pre share-issue and post share issue, as far as the new share issue , have there ben any who have NOT given an undertaking?

    K: Andrew Hophard [ ed. I think I may have misheard that name!] has given a verbal assurance.

    Mr M: and undertakings to some extent, for example, Club 1872- they've given an undertaking. 

    If these undertakings are solid then in effect there would be no difference between post-issue and before?

    Lady W: Where is this going? It seems somewhat fluid? Is there  need for some discussion between parties?

    Mr M: [ ed.he made a longish discourse about 'headline' figure, which I got lost in, and would only be guessing if I wrote anything]

    Lady W: but this is not relevant to this Court

    Mr M: We heard how the Gordian knot could be cut yesterday by the Takeover Panel. The offer must be made to every shareholder, but there is reality, irrevocables in particular.Mr King, we're looking at one significant question: will you be able to make an offer for the shares of every non-concert party shareholder. The practical thing is where payment is to come from if the offer is accepted. The question is where the money comes from, and 'cash confirmation', and we herd from the Panel yesterday how these could be dealt with.

    Dr Johnston ( rising): M'Lady, I'm not sure that this is relevant.

    Lady W: If there is a possibility of purging, the Court would be delighted. I'm content to let the parties..

    Mr M: I think we hear…

    Dr J: these discussions were not held 

    Mr M: (addressing Mr King); Mr King, what are the current intentions relating to complying with the Takeover Panel's stipulation as regards 'cash confirmation' in respect of entire shareholdings?

    K: I am committed 100% to use the UK.

    Mr M: It has become accepted that cash confirmation must be in the UK?

    K: I accept that.

    Mr M: What is the current position?

    K: I believe all options are closed, other than a UK source. If I could talk with the Panel..

    Mr M: The current position is we do not have..

    Lady W: I don't understand…..What is the nature of your [ed.'doubt'?

    K: I would look for advice from the Panel..Investec would be okay, in terms of fees and acceptability.

    Mr M; You would put forward a specific institution in the UK prepared to act as 'cash confirmation' in the near future.

    K: Yes.

    Mr M: Once you've done that,are you in a position to say what that means?

    K: Yes.

    I would apply for Exchange Control for amount due.

    Mr M :Do you have an application for £19M?

    K:No.

    Mr M: Do you know how such an application might proceed? Having exported money to the UK, if the offer is not accepted then monies are to be returned to South Africa?

    K: That's my understanding.

    Mr M: so, £10M would be paid, the rest returned?

    K:Yes.

    Mr M: You understand that a lower figure of £19M would be acceptable

    [ed.Lady W said something here but I didn't catch it: just a quick question]

    King continued, I asked my accountants to re-institute my application by today.We got a response from Investec that they coud not do it by today. It was suggested that we make an approach to SARS.

    I will attend to that on my return to my office on Monday.

    Mr M: [said something I didn't catch]

    K: It's clear that the Panel will not give me a chce of making a lower offer

    Mr M: You were given advices on what was to be done on Monday of this week?

    K: I'm looking at various options.

    Mr M: The change is that you now accept that the only way forward is tomake an application to Exchange control for £19M and set up UK arrangements?

    K: I accept that

    Mr M: The remaining issue is what the 'cash confirmer' may seek, given the Panels need for security,in relation to the possibility of putting up only some of the money.So far, you have not had confirmation from the Panel on that?

    K: I'm reasonably optimistic that the Panelmight relax, once arrangements are made.

    Mr M: So, you understand that identifying a 'cash confirmer' comes first.

    K: I now understand that.

    Mr M: Today, what do you propose todo about complying?

     

    { and that's enough for tonight! See this one-finger typing! And Tennent's Special has nuttin to dae wi'it! I blame instead the snifter of John Barleycorn!)

     

     

     

     

     


  30. And meanwhile at a cheap airport hotel somewhere in the central belt, poor Dave King must be raging at the inadequacies of his wonderfully remunerated tribute act manager.

     

    ……. if only Dave's thinking, we had a Glasgow derby for the league cup this weekend, all that pesky, serious court room stuff wouldn't be mentioned in the press.

     

    ……… if only Dave's thinking, last December I could raise the concomitant funds to recruit a tactically adept established manager.

     

    Every day's a school day Dave. Enjoy your weekend.


  32. K: BNL engaged in criminal activities in the USA. They are in Administration.

    Mr M: Who makes decisions [ed. about their finances, or on their behalf?]

    K: The Administrators.

    Lady W:The Administrators might be in the category of wishing to maximise receipts?
    …………………..
    Let us hope the administrators are no Duff & Phelps.
    …………..
    Lady W:The Administrators might be in the category of wishing to maximise receipts?
    If they are doing there job’s right yes they will, they will bite Mr kings hand off for 20p a share, but would BNL have if not in administration?


  34. If you thought that Dave King was only the chairman of a "holding company", then think again.  On at least two occasions during his evidence, he described himself as the "club chairman".


  35. Wow Just Wow!

    That was some week for The Rangers.

    1) A 44 year old fan is charged with lobbing a glass bottle into Aberdeen supporters – hitting a 12 year old boy.

    2) A fan invades the pitch to abuse the linesman at the Villareal game, (with UEFA punishment expected).

    3) TRFC is hit with a raft of SFA charges, including "bringing the game into disrepute".

    4) An AGM was held, were everyone skirted around the published accounts quoting a shocking £14M loss.

    5) The Chairman up in court for contempt hearing.

    And to cap the week?

    Watching the League Cup Final tomorrow, which the bears probably expected / assumed they would win as Gerrard's first piece of silverware.

    Oh dear, what a pity, never mind…  angry


  36. Reading some comments on Twitter this morning I was wondering how long Mr King has been sitting on the information he divulged in court yesterday. Surely he should have contacted the authorities as soon as he knew? Perhaps he has already done so and arrests are imminent.


  37. I can only imagine today's media had the Chairman of Celtic yesterday claimed in a court that shareholders in the company are linked to organised crime. 

    To say Dave King gets an easy ride in the media doesn't even begin to describe it. 


  38.    Was it not the case that the SFA were informed of the identities of all shareholders in Sevco?…A requirement of granting membership?

             Seems like Honest Dave is turning the screw on them. A wee visit by plod should quickly provide them with names and addresses of these organised crims. With Honest Dave on the stand for the prosecution it should be a slam-dunk. 

        


  39. Ex Ludo 1st December 2018 at 11:29

    Reading some comments on Twitter this morning I was wondering how long Mr King has been sitting on the information he divulged in court yesterday. Surely he should have contacted the authorities as soon as he knew? Perhaps he has already done so and arrests are imminent.

    The ideal time for King to have spilled the beans was when, at great expense to the taxpayer, the bold D/I Robertson and his D/S flew out to interview King at his home in Johannesburg about the nefarious goings on at Ibrox re: Craig Whyte.  I'm sure that, over a nice glass of house red, Dave would have been relaxed enough to tell Inspector Knacker the whole sordid story.


  40. Dear Ian Maxwell chief executive of the SFA.
    Please could you inform Mr Dave king that he is not the chairman of TRFC but he is the chaitman of the RIFC.
    It may have just slipped his mind. With all his court cases and statements.
    Dave King also told the court the club have blocked some shareholders from transferring shares due to concerns over money laundering and organised crime.
    So he has a lot on his mind.
    In a statement, King said: “I am delighted that at a Court of Session hearing before Lord Woolman my application to become a director of Rangers International Football Club PLC was granted.
    …………….
    Dave King has been cleared to become a director of Rangers International Football Club PLC by the Court of Session in Scotland.
    As you know Mr king did not pass the Scottish Football Association’s fit and proper person test,So could not become chairman of TRFC.
    As we are on the subject of fit and proper person test, how is Alistair johnstons coming along?
    Mr king has so much on his mind at the moment what with TRFC being hit with a raft of SFA charges, including “bringing the game into disrepute”.
    And many court cases with Mike Ahley, and published accounts quoting a shocking £14M loss.
    He told a court only yesterday that small shareholders only wanted to own part of the club so would not sell their shares.
    I hope this was not a lie Mr king said in court but was just a slip of the mind.
    As these small shareholders would be informed they only hold shares in the company TRIFC and not TRFC the club.
    Anyway Ian Maxwell i know you are on the ball and have everything in hand. With all the transparency at the SFA a small statement from yourself as chief executive of the SFA would help many fans who may today be thinking what the hell is going on over at ibrox. would be helpfull.
    MERRY BLOODY CHRISTMAS to all at the SFA, may 2019 not bring upheaval.
    Ps. before you were chief executive of the SFA Mr Maxwell. Dave king gave the SFA a GUARANTEE he would not act as a shadow director of TRFC. you may find it in some notes left behind by your predecessor.


  41. Thanks to StevieBC 1st December 2018 at 10:50
    I used half his post for mine.
    Thanks to easyJambo 1st December 2018 at 10:20
    for clarification.


  42. upthehoops 

    1st December 2018 at 11:43

    ========================================

    I was just thinking similar, but not just Celtic, any other club.

    "Kilmarnock chairman admits that the club is partially owned by organised crime groups"

    "Hibs chairman tells Court club used as money laundering vehicle".

    "The Record can reveal Aberdeen re-building was funded with criminal proceeds"

    With King he is actually using it as an excuse not to follow an order of the Court and no-one in the media is batting an eyelid.

    It really is staggering. 

    He is throwing the club under a bus to help himself and the media in Scotland simply stopped the bus. 


  43. From Phil earlier today, …..

    A hat tip to the chaps at the sottish football monitor for being in the court of session to witness the proceedings, ……. they are an excellent example of citizen journalism at it's Best.

    Take a bow guys.


  44. All this court stuff is distracting us from the real question of the weekend . How long will the grass be at Tynie ?


  45. John Clark and easyjambo.

    Thank You.

    Having reread the postings of the last couple of days I have a question.

    Was there any evidence from Mr King which answered the contempt of court charge?

    There seemed to be a lot of chat about the history of the case; which in essence is that Mr King was told three?, four? times to get on with it but didn't and it would appear that on Friday both Lady Wolffe and the Takeover Panel's QC asked on a number of occasions what King and King's QC's line had to do with the price of fish.

    I haven't read anything which goes even close to addressing the putative lack of mens rea defence.

    Even if King makes the offer I don't see how this purges the contempt.

    I think (easyjambo can confirm) that King has already been told that not only is he liable for both sides expenses up to Thursday but there is a percentage uplift for the Takeover Panel due to novelty. Not a bill I would greet with alacrity and I doubt that King's can-kicking has been a financially shrewd one. I would hope that all bills are sent to South Africa and not South Govan.

    I think Mr King is what I once heard described as a Criminal Mindermast.

    It's actually the opposite of what he thinks.


  46. BBC Scotland sports news correspondent Chris McLaughlin

    Eyebrows were raised in court at his mention of organised crime and money laundering, but it has to be viewed in context. His allegations centred around those he sees as the faceless overseas investors he had to wrestle for control in 2015. The claims are likely to remain just that and any fears of the Ibrox club being at risk from major criminals seem far fetched.

    ============================================

    Yes Chris, the context was that he was giving evidence in the Court of Session.

    Are you suggesting that by making these "far fetched" claims Dave King was trying to mislead the Court.

    Or is it another case of two truths. For the purpose of the Court he can't buy some shares because it would be criminals selling, but that's not true if anyone is actually concerned there are even more criminals involved at Ibrox.

    Kind of like an impecunious man who can't afford to buy shares, then the same man also being able to put up £19m when forced to.


  47. paddy malarkey 1st December 2018 at 17:36
    8 0 Rate This

    All this court stuff is distracting us from the real question of the weekend . How long will the grass be?

    I have it on good authority, there’s an under-cover tim cutting the grass tomorrow, :)…… so no worries!!!


  48. LUGOSI 1st December 2018 at 17:55

    Having reread the postings of the last couple of days I have a question.

    Was there any evidence from Mr King which answered the contempt of court charge?

    ===================================

    The short answer is no. In fact King was only asked one direct question about it, i.e if he was in "wilful defiance" of the court order.  That was the last question he was asked before Mitchell asked for an adjournment to discuss a possible resolution.

    As you observed, King's QC skirted round the issue, focusing on the share placing, the undertakings, and their impact on a possible offer, such as the amount of cash that would be required.

    Lady Wolffe more than once asked Mitchell where he was going with a line of questioning and the relevance to the matter that faced the court, i.e. the contempt. Mitchell always talks at length in the cases I've seen with him leading evidence. Unlike a criminal trial, there tends to be no restrictions placed on leading the witness. To that end, Mitchell mixed his own statements with his questions.

    That approach and the off topic line of questions actually ended when Johnston finally intervened following Lady Wolffe's lead, saying that it was if he was having to listen to two witnesses at the same time. Lady Wolffe commented, "I'll take that as an objection". At than point Mitchell changed tack, asked a couple of questions on King's willingness to make an offer, then asked for the adjournment.

    I suspect that Mitchell was able to execute his planned strategy, almost to perfection. TOP went first with Johnston only asking a few questions of each of his witnesses, relying very much on the affidavits previously submitted (which we don't see), that evidenced the basis of the contempt claim.  Mitchell's questioning of the TOP witnesses was limited to looking for inconsistencies in their evidence or loopholes in the takeover code (there were none that I heard). 

    Mitchell was given, from my viewpoint, a bit too much latitude to go into solutioning mode of what might constitute King's purging of his contempt, rather than answer the charge. He appeared to have gone in with the knowledge that King was going to comply before the day was out, but that he wanted to get King's arguments aired before he did so.

    By timing King's "undertakings" as he did, there was no opportunity for King to be cross examined, on either the TOP witnesses or his own oral and written testimony. I'd imagine that would have exposed the nature of King's contempt. For me, that was the biggest frustration at the proceedings. I wanted to hear what King had or hadn't done, or said, since the court order was issued.

    JC seemed more frustrated that King would be able to "purge" his contempt without sanction for having been in contempt for a considerable period. However, Lady Wolffe indicated that the court would always afford a respondent the opportunity to purge their contempt. TOP had also made it clear that compliance with the code was paramount, and that they would always prefer that an offer be made late, rather than not at all.   

    Had King not agreed to comply, then King would have been cross examined by the TOP QC and Lady Wolffe would have been able to reference both the oral and written evidence, so would have had much more evidence to consider than was actually heard over the two days. It became apparent that this week's hearing was only for the witnesses to submit their evidence and be cross examined on it. In the following two weeks, there would be a further hearing in which Lady Wolffe would hear final submissions, then a discussion on the legal aspects of the case before making her decision.

     


  49. Does anyone believe Dave king will comply?
    I think he could do a Reginald Perrin and the SMSM would be happy to go along with it, no questions asked


  50. Continuation of Mr Mitchell's QC examination-in-chief of his client Mr King

    K: I now understand that.

    Mr M: Today, what do you propose to do about complying?

    K: I must look at who the 'Cash confirmer' can be. Investec preferably, and engage, and engage with Exchange Control

    Mr M: You're past the point of arguing about the 'cash confirmer' and fees

    K: Yes, but subject to negotiation, -fees are a consideration.

    Mr M; If Investec is not willing, what would you do?

    K: I would approach another institution.

    Mr M: As regards the length of time of an application…We heard yesterday that it can take one to two weeks?

    K: It would take 6 weeks,

    Lady Wise: Have you made application before?

    K: Yes, and I have recently completed a multi-million deal .

    Mr M: You've had experience of Exchange Control [ed.applications]?

    K: Yes- 50 times.

    Mr M: We heard that normally the business merits of an application are not questioned…

    K: Well, in my experience over 20 years the business case is always looked at.

    Mr M: Are you satisfied that you can make a business case.

    K: Yes.. but it won't fly through, especially by that amount [ed. A reference to the £19M sum]

    Lady W: We'll have a short break now.15 minutes? Mr King, you do understand that you are still on oath, and that you must not discuss these matters with anyone during the break?

    K: Yes,m'Lady.

    Court rose.

     

    Reconvened.

    Mr M: Mr King, you have described the state of Rangers some years ago, regime change and the absence of feasibility of that without your involvement and how you ended up being involved in 'concert party'..

    K:I've no idea of that

    Mr M: Did you plan to be a concert party member?

    K: No.

    Mr M: The consequences : your assets are tied up in a number of trusts

    K: Two Trusts

    Mr M: This poses practical difficulties .

    K: Yes

    Mr M: Do you remain committed to the policy intention to look after small shareholders?

    K: Yes. I'm responsible to all shareholders. I know the bigger ones, of course, but I don't know the smaller shareholders [ ed.in the same way/to the same extent]

    Mr M: You have a moral obligation ..

    K: Yes.

    Mr M: The practical difficulties have been enormous?

    K: The fact that I am in South Africa [ed: makes things a little difficult]

    Mr M: You accept that you must reconcile those difficulties with the requirements of the Takeover Panel?

    K: (turning to address Lady W) Yes, I've accepted that for some time, m'Lady

    Mr M: looking at the Court order, an order you have not complied with, are you in 'wilful defiance'?

    K: Absolutely not.

    Mr M: Are you prepared to comply?

    K: I am determined to comply.

    Mr M: M'Lady, I seek permission to discuss with Mr Johnstone to see if we can reach a way to a resolution…

    Lady W:Have you finished your examination-in-chief?

    Mr M: No. The discussion I suggest would relate to resolving the situation .

    Lady W: Its a bit [ed.irregular/unusual]….but it's an unusual case..Dr Johnstone, would you take exception?

    Dr J: (quietly spoken, but audible) It's been a little bit like listening to two witnesses.[but I don't take exception.]

    Mr M:We would be back at 2 o'clock, m'lady.

    Lady W: Mr Mitchell, the witness is still under oath and the contempt case is ongoing . There is a limit to what you discuss. It's an unusual case, so I will let parties have discussion.

    Be back at 2.00 o'clock.

    (Court rose).

    ( I had lots to do today preparing to jet out to Oz on Monday, so I've been able to manage only this much so far. More to come.)

     

     


  51. Court reconvened at 2.10 pm.

    Mr M: my Lady, we have had constructive discussions.(he handed up a document to be lodged in process)

    It is initialled on the second page, and it is appropriate, not least in the public interest, that it be read in  Court.  

    I ask that the diet of Proof be discharged , and I require to renew my sanction..

    The final paragraph provides that a public announcement be made no later than 3 December and published on the Rangers web site. 

    [ he read the document in full, but since it is to be published, I did not take special interest in trying to record it]

    It relates to what has been undertaken by parties:

    1.all [ed: reasonable?] steps to be taken to instruct a Third party 'cash confirmer' to be confirmed by 14 December 2018

    2.do all such things as are required consistent with Laird making full offer as agreed by the Takeover panel and Cash Confirmer

    3.take all steps as are required in South Africa to transfer such funds as are necessary  by 3 January 2019

    4.to instruct Cash Confirmer to provide advice to King/Laird to consult with the Panel

    1. to ensure that Laird makes an offer for Rangers [ ed. yes, those were the very words used, on my oath!]by  pm on 25 January 2019
    2. to appoint by 14 December 2018 a fresh legal adviser conversant with  Takeover Code matters to advise ..

    6.not to raise any objections to any enquiries  by the Lord Advocate

    7, by no later than 5.30 pm on3 December 2018 publish the contents of this document

     

    (Mr Mitchell then suggested that 12 December  is too early a date [for whatever was pencilled in for that date] and proposed that it be left to Parties to decide before my lady, and the sanction to remain on Mr King to consult as if NOT a witness, with the Panel as required.

    Lady W: Mr Johnstone?

    Mr J: I have no objection.

    Lady Wolffe: I AM NOT GOING TO ACCEDE to the request to discharge the Proof, but continue to  4 February 2019

    Mr King is ordained to appear. 

    There will be a  'By Order' on 29 January 2019  for [ didn't catch that] 

    Lady W consults with her Clerk of Court: and says that Counsel will update the Court by 28 January, before the 'by order' hearing on 29 January.

    Lady Wolffe then addressed Mr King: Mr King you are free to discuss matters with the Panel and your advisers.But you must understand that you are required to appear in person on 4 February. This is a peremptory order, and is mandatory and there  [can be  serious consequences if you do not appear.]

    Proof hearing is continued

    Immediately after the judge left the bench, eJ and I, sitting immediately behind Mr Jillings and Mr Evans of the TOP, engaged them in conversation.

    eJ stunned them with his understanding of the arithmetic of the shareholding percentages and the overall effect of the 'share issue', and they agreed his understanding.

    I rather less impressed them with a query about whether anyone was thinking of amending Section 955 of the Companies Act 2006- the section that had given Lord Bannatyne some difficulty about judicial discretionary powers/options. They answered that the use of 'may' in a piece of legislation is pretty normal, and was not really a problem.

    But they were extremely pleasant and open, and I think, pleasantly surprised at our interest and apparent familiarity with the case.

     

     

     

     


  52. It seems Lady W is fully aware of King's glib and shameless personality and has headed him off at the pass. It seems that extradition would also be possible if King decided not to return to face the music. His final hope must be that SARS deny him the right to move the money out of the country but that seems unlikely. It really would be karma if those who have given verbal assurances not to sell did just that once the opportunity presents itself. They must realise by now that King is bad bad news to be associated with (any) company and this will be a last opportunity to realise any value for what are rapidly depreciating shares in a near bankrupt organisation. King promised last year to fund any shortfall but failed to do so hence the expensive loan from Close. The same promises have been made this year when he has all this extra demand for his finance , only a fool would trust him to deliver . King of course will use the extra funding demanded by TOP to excuse himself from his shortfall commitments leaving the other Directors to step up or seek out another loan shark arrangement. The sensible option would be to offload any player of value in January, return expensive loan players and live within their means until things stabilise. Will they ? Not a chance.


  53. John big thanks again to you and EJ for an incredible stream of primary information and real insight that none of the other journos and hacks seem to be capable of.

    Or allowed to do maybe?

     

    You deserve an upgrade on your Oz-bound flights, safe journey and look forward to you being a foreign correspondent for  while.

    EJ you (we) deserve a goal or two starting today.


  54. Lady W: Mr Mitchell, the witness is still under oath and the contempt case is ongoing . There is a limit to what you discuss. It’s an unusual case, so I will let parties have discussion.
    ……….
    Thanks again JC and safe journey.
    ………………
    eJ stunned them with his understanding of the arithmetic of the shareholding percentages and the overall effect of the ‘share issue’, and they agreed his understanding.
    …………..
    Brilliant.


  55. Cluster One 1st December 2018 at 21:32

    Does anyone believe Dave king will comply?
    I think he could do a Reginald Perrin and the SMSM would be happy to go along with it, no questions asked

    ===================================

    According to this, there is no extradition arrangement in any form between South Africa and the U.K. Just saying…

    http://www.justice.gov.za/ilr/mla.html

    I have to say I am utterly disgusted the Scottish media are not all over King's court statement that shareholders in Rangers have links to organised crime. This must surely pose the question whether all funding they currently receive is clean. I can't accuse anyone of anything without evidence, but it is a significant statement to make under oath in a court, and one any self respecting media should be going after big style. 

     


  56. One piece of irony from the CoS hearing. When asked about his options for seeking an "authorised dealer" to arrange exchange control clearance, Investec was the first choice (subject to their fees being reasonable), but King was considering using SARS as an agent.

    I don't know the ins and outs of SA Exchange controls, but I had a little chuckle to myself at the thought of SARS actually helping King to get funds out the country.


  57. Although no extradition arrangement currently exist between the UK and SA it doesn't mean they would refuse to extradite him. King though as we have seen is expert at dragging procedures out and could choose to dig his heels in . That would mean the end of his involvement in the company and a real possibility of administration.

    It becomes an almost impossible task to 2nd guess this man and his intentions , if it comes down to cost then what he would lose by walking away against what he would lose by complying is simple enough but with King nothing seems to be that simple. With an admin event comes a 15pt penalty and an exodus of the overpaid which would include Gerrard . Mr Murty and a collection of youth will not have the turnstiles clicking for long and the rot then sets in again. If King stays and doesn't fund Gerrard then Murty may be back anyway. 


  58. I think we can confidently look forward to unexpected and unfortunate third party issues further delaying King's devout intent to make an offer under the timetable just agreed with Lady Wolffe & the TOP.

    All outwith Mr King's control of course.

    Scottish Football has a strong Arbroath.


  59. Can I add my thanks to our intrepid court reporters for the fantastic job they are doing. The detail and analysis they are providing puts our so-called professional journalists to shame.

    While I'm here, it's half-time at Tynecastle and the facsimile club have taken the lead by virtue of an offside goal. I'm sure that Jim Traynor is currently compiling an official complaint to the SFA about the standard of decisions made in this match. indecision


  60. Might the Dave King shenanigans be a cunning plan to get £19m out of South Africa? He gets his money out because a court has ordered him to make this sum available, but swears that hell only be spending a million, if that. He buys from the Easdales etc and the rest of the money disappears to the British Virgin Islands.


  61. ulyanova 2nd December 2018 at 16:13

    Might the Dave King shenanigans be a cunning plan to get £19m out of South Africa?

    ==============================

    Highly unlikely. There was some discussion in court about the conditions that the exchange control dealer might put on the arrangement, e.g. that any used funds would have to be repatriated.


  63. easyJambo 30th November 2018 at 14:31
    38 0 Rate This

    Following the break King has provided the court with an undertaking which will be published on the RFC website by 3rd Dec.
    ……………….
    All eyes on TRFC web site tomorrow then.
    Let us hope it does not get any technical issues that stops Mr kings undertakings being published.


  64. Hard fought final.CFC deserved to win overall but the Dons made it difficult.If they play the rest of the season the way they played today it won't be long before they're in the league position that most of us expected them to be in.

    Glad to hear that GMS seems to be OK.A players health is always more important than the result.Commented to my mate at the time that if this had been Rugby,Boyata would not have returned.FWIW.I think rugby has it right.

    As an aside,

    The court has laid out a timetable that King must adhere to.The 1st order is that King will make a statement wrt the courts instructions 0n the RIFC website tomorrow.I don't think the Court will pay much attention if he misses by a day or two.

    However,if he doesn't have a cash confirmer(Investec?) by the close of business on 14th December,then all bets are off.

    Are Investec? willing to put their name on the line if they don't have Daves cash?.


  65. Twice yesterday my thoughts turned to John Thomson. First at Tynecastle then at Hampden. Shows how quickly things can decline into tragedy.


  66. Have to commend EJ & JC for their court coverage last week. Apart from their careful attention to detail, presentation of facts and explanatory narrative, they have emerged as THE authority and go-to guys for info and background on these matters. Quite the Twitter following too.
    Thanks guys ????


  67. Here here. Brilliant stuff from our court reporters. It’s this sort of reportage that makes SFM so special


  68. Has anyone put together a compilation of the various SMSM in-depth reports on their investigations into DCK's claim of criminal involvement and money laundering at RIFC?

    What an amazing story for the press to get their teeth into!

    SFNASA

     

     


  69. redlichtie 

    3rd December 2018 at 10:55

    ======================================

    Its quite extraordinary.

    The chairman of a PLC which is 100% owner of a Scottish institution (sic) declares in open Court, presumably under oath, that the PLC is partly owned by organised crime groups. 

    Which means that the institution was built at least in part using the proceeds of crime ( the share issue funded the club being built).

    Where is the outcry in the media. Where are the calls for enquiries, for Police involvement. 

    I'm not seeing it. 

    Its particularly ironic that the same man, a convicted criminal, made these declarations at a hearing relating to his own alleged contempt of Court. 


  70. Homunculus @11.50

    You couldn’t make this up. Any chance there’s an  MSP or MP who follows this blog who who has the integrity to raise this in either Parliament?


  71. Homunculus 3rd December 2018 at 11:50

    =================================

    The cultural power of Rangers in Scotland is quite incredible. Surely with King having made the statement about organised crime under oath in a court then the Police must be duty bound to follow up on it?


  72. I remember from a good number of years ago that BBC Scotland sent a news team to Lithuania to investigate Romanov, on what was then no more than rumours/a hunch. They ended up showing a half-hour program of not very much. Now, on their very doorstep, with clear allegations (from a man in a position to know) in court that criminal money was used by one of our football clubs (regardless of it's age) not one member of our media is showing the least bit of interest.

     

    It's not even worth asking why that might be.

     

    Shameful.

Comments are closed.